7 ms·

This is an interesting redefinition of the words "power grab". I'm not sure if this is like a mental issue people are having where truth is just become entirely

This is an interesting redefinition of the words "power grab". I'm not sure if this is like a mental issue people are having where truth is just become entirely subjective and so they can twist anything to mean anything they want or if this is intentional propaganda to mislead people. The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy. Congress can pass laws and the president can have people enforce those laws but those laws cannot be so broad as to say this unelected enforcement agency can literally write new laws in the form of regulations and then enforce them as if they were law without any kind of recourse. That is a fundamental violation of due process to say some agency was empowered with such broad authority and such broad scope that they can literally write any rule that they want and you must follow it. To limit the agencies to actually enforcing the law that Congress passed and requiring that those laws be specific enough that they are not open to broad interpretation and redefinition is the opposite of a power grab. It is the limitation of unelected bureaucrats in their power. If Congress wishes to re-empower them they simply need to pass the laws. Those experts, as they claim in the article, have within their power to suggest new legislation for things they want to implement. Having them just be able to arbitrarily make any new rule that they want under a broad umbrella of you are empowered to protect the environment is akin to a dictatorship.

silverquiet 2y ago
> I'm not sure if this is like a mental issue people are having where truth is just become entirely subjective and so they can twist anything to mean anything they want or if this is intentional propaganda to mislead people. Can you be entirely sure that you are not subject to the same faults that you see in these people? Do you think they might see the same effect in you?
kllrnohj 2y ago
> What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy. You mean, like the entire court system including the supreme court is? The courts interpret Congress' laws and they aren't elected. So using your same logic then instead every question of law should be put back to Congress to clarify. That sounds like a great way to ensure nothing ever gets done, right? Kinda like that's exactly what the supreme court's decision is counting on - a giant ddos against government agencies, crippling all regulations that stand today. It's absolutely a power grab and it's absolutely unjustified as it goes against what Congress, the one in charge of this area, wants. After all, congress was just overridden by an unelected 3rd party. A clear farce and a bad joke if it wasn't real life.
mullingitover 2y ago
> The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. So when investors delegate to the officers of the company the authority to write company policies and procedures, do you also consider this a power grab of some kind?
MVissers 2y ago
So the FDA will lose power to regulate what type of food additives are allowed or not? It makes sense IMO that orgs like the FDA or EPA regulates health safety issues instead of politicians. Does this block that from happening?
- workingdog 2y ago
  Congress will have to be specific, yes. And we'll be able to vote them out if we don't like what they say.
  - MVissers 2y ago
    Sounds like a tremendous step backwards, since congress is directly paid for by mega corporations. Especially concerning complex topics such as EPA and FDA. People (voters) don’t understand these topics and neither do politicians. So how can we expect politicians to regulate these complex areas? Sounds like corporations will just start to own the laws that are being passed even more. Which promotes further consolidation of power and detrimental health effects for the population.
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  No, congress gave FDA the authority to regulate food additives. This does not mean congress has to list out EVERY SINGLE ADDITIVE, and to think that is very naive in how the legislative and legal process works. Consider this broad hypothetical: The FDA can regulate food additives, what about engine oil additives? If the FDA said no, Valvoline cannot use a specific additive to their motor oil, we would all scratch our heads and say that's not the FDA's job, and they don't have the authority to do that. Under Chevron deference the courts would defer to the FDA and say yes, they have the experts to decide these things, who are we to second-guess the regulatory agency? With this Supreme Court decision, courts will no longer automatically defer to the agencies.
  - techostritch 2y ago
    This doesn’t seem like the proper reading of Chevron Deference to me. Chevron deference says that when the delegation is implicit but not explicit then you defer to the agency. So in the FDA example, there is no implicit authority to regulate motor oil.
RHSeeger 2y ago
Given the number and complexity of regulations, and the amount of time and effort that goes into determining what they should be; it doesn't seem realistic to have Congress pass laws for every regulation. Delegating power some things seems like the only realistic option.
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  That's not quite how the system works. Regulations can be made but they must be made within the statutory authority granted by congress. This is one of the reasons why the DEA, etc. has not been able to declassify marijuana as a harmful drug. They don't have the authority. I am stumped why we would want any regulatory government body to act beyond it's congressional authority. I think you might be misinterpreting the meaning of the word authority.
  - RHSeeger 2y ago
    I don't understand where your comment is coming from. My comment was in response to "Congress abdicating their power" here... > The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy. If you're talking about Congress giving power it doesn't actually have to an organization, then that's a totally different thing. It is not what I was talking about.
brookst 2y ago
Disagree. The US legal system runs on the principle that unless something is forbidden by law, it is permitted. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal. And if for some reason this is the one exception to the way our legal system works, where the lack of express permission means it is forbidden, isn’t it odd that the courts have the power to make this decision despite not having a written mandate. This is absolutely a power grab, with the intent of “breaking the administrative state”, as Steve Brannon promised. It is not possible for 438 people to legislate the implementation details of every policy in the entire country on an ongoing basis. This is basically Make Rivers Flammable Again.
- nathanaldensr 2y ago
  > There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal. Citation needed. Separation of Powers would like a word with you.
  - brookst 2y ago
    Citation needed indeed. I claim an absence of a prohibition. If you have text saying “Congress may not delegate”, please cite it. Note that the phrase “separation of powers” does not appear in the Constitution.
- friend_and_foe 2y ago
  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system. Law as it applies to the conduct of people and organizations works this way in the Anglo common law world, yes. The constitution specifically and clearly states that the federal government is constrained in it's power to only those powers expressly outlined in it, and which branches have what powers.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
drumdumts 2y ago
> For an unelected panel of judges to come in, above the agencies, and tell them how the president is allowed to enforce laws is a perversion of the constitutional order and separation of powers—and a repudiation of democracy itself. This is from the article. And I think you missed it. There's a chain of command and there's oversight and apparently, The Supreme Court wants to be at the top of both, like Putin and the likes. It's as bad for the USA as Putin is for Russia.

silverquiet 2y ago

> I'm not sure if this is like a mental issue people are having where truth is just become entirely subjective and so they can twist anything to mean anything they want or if this is intentional propaganda to mislead people. Can you be entirely sure that you are not subject to the same faults that you see in these people? Do you think they might see the same effect in you?

kllrnohj 2y ago

> What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy. You mean, like the entire court system including the supreme court is? The courts interpret Congress' laws and they aren't elected. So using your same logic then instead every question of law should be put back to Congress to clarify. That sounds like a great way to ensure nothing ever gets done, right? Kinda like that's exactly what the supreme court's decision is counting on - a giant ddos against government agencies, crippling all regulations that stand today. It's absolutely a power grab and it's absolutely unjustified as it goes against what Congress, the one in charge of this area, wants. After all, congress was just overridden by an unelected 3rd party. A clear farce and a bad joke if it wasn't real life.

mullingitover 2y ago

> The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. So when investors delegate to the officers of the company the authority to write company policies and procedures, do you also consider this a power grab of some kind?

MVissers 2y ago

So the FDA will lose power to regulate what type of food additives are allowed or not? It makes sense IMO that orgs like the FDA or EPA regulates health safety issues instead of politicians. Does this block that from happening?

workingdog 2y ago
Congress will have to be specific, yes. And we'll be able to vote them out if we don't like what they say.
- MVissers 2y ago
  Sounds like a tremendous step backwards, since congress is directly paid for by mega corporations. Especially concerning complex topics such as EPA and FDA. People (voters) don’t understand these topics and neither do politicians. So how can we expect politicians to regulate these complex areas? Sounds like corporations will just start to own the laws that are being passed even more. Which promotes further consolidation of power and detrimental health effects for the population.
Molitor5901 2y ago
No, congress gave FDA the authority to regulate food additives. This does not mean congress has to list out EVERY SINGLE ADDITIVE, and to think that is very naive in how the legislative and legal process works. Consider this broad hypothetical: The FDA can regulate food additives, what about engine oil additives? If the FDA said no, Valvoline cannot use a specific additive to their motor oil, we would all scratch our heads and say that's not the FDA's job, and they don't have the authority to do that. Under Chevron deference the courts would defer to the FDA and say yes, they have the experts to decide these things, who are we to second-guess the regulatory agency? With this Supreme Court decision, courts will no longer automatically defer to the agencies.
- techostritch 2y ago
  This doesn’t seem like the proper reading of Chevron Deference to me. Chevron deference says that when the delegation is implicit but not explicit then you defer to the agency. So in the FDA example, there is no implicit authority to regulate motor oil.

RHSeeger 2y ago

Given the number and complexity of regulations, and the amount of time and effort that goes into determining what they should be; it doesn't seem realistic to have Congress pass laws for every regulation. Delegating power some things seems like the only realistic option.

Molitor5901 2y ago
That's not quite how the system works. Regulations can be made but they must be made within the statutory authority granted by congress. This is one of the reasons why the DEA, etc. has not been able to declassify marijuana as a harmful drug. They don't have the authority. I am stumped why we would want any regulatory government body to act beyond it's congressional authority. I think you might be misinterpreting the meaning of the word authority.
- RHSeeger 2y ago
  I don't understand where your comment is coming from. My comment was in response to "Congress abdicating their power" here... > The power grab that was done was with Congress abdicating their power into unelected bureaucracies to create and enforce rules with the force of law. What the supreme Court is saying is that Congress cannot abdicate their power into an unelected bureaucracy. If you're talking about Congress giving power it doesn't actually have to an organization, then that's a totally different thing. It is not what I was talking about.

brookst 2y ago

Disagree. The US legal system runs on the principle that unless something is forbidden by law, it is permitted. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal. And if for some reason this is the one exception to the way our legal system works, where the lack of express permission means it is forbidden, isn’t it odd that the courts have the power to make this decision despite not having a written mandate. This is absolutely a power grab, with the intent of “breaking the administrative state”, as Steve Brannon promised. It is not possible for 438 people to legislate the implementation details of every policy in the entire country on an ongoing basis. This is basically Make Rivers Flammable Again.

nathanaldensr 2y ago
> There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding delegation of implementation decisions from Congress to Executive. Therefore it is legal. Citation needed. Separation of Powers would like a word with you.
- brookst 2y ago
  Citation needed indeed. I claim an absence of a prohibition. If you have text saying “Congress may not delegate”, please cite it. Note that the phrase “separation of powers” does not appear in the Constitution.
friend_and_foe 2y ago
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal system. Law as it applies to the conduct of people and organizations works this way in the Anglo common law world, yes. The constitution specifically and clearly states that the federal government is constrained in it's power to only those powers expressly outlined in it, and which branches have what powers.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

drumdumts 2y ago

> For an unelected panel of judges to come in, above the agencies, and tell them how the president is allowed to enforce laws is a perversion of the constitutional order and separation of powers—and a repudiation of democracy itself. This is from the article. And I think you missed it. There's a chain of command and there's oversight and apparently, The Supreme Court wants to be at the top of both, like Putin and the likes. It's as bad for the USA as Putin is for Russia.